Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
But I am sure there are no applicable moral rights
to let's say correcting missing space around punctuation.
I have made some studies,
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
I selected a great picture from Commons. I loaded it on my memory stick. I
went to a copy shop and had it printed in poster format for little money. No
fuss. I did not even need to bring it on a memory stick, I could have
downloaded the picture at the copy shop.
Hoi,
I could not disagree more with you. People who work on Wikipedia do this
because they make a difference. This making a difference is what I think is
of paramount importance, what makes people proud of this endeavour. When
people use my pictures and my ,it makes a difference how they use it.
Should we take no steps to protect people who have no wish to have their
photos published worldwide on a site owned by a charity devoted to
knowledge?
Or to put it another way, is an identifiable image of a person really free
if that person has not given a model release (irrespective of whether
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston s...@samj.net wrote:
... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial
publishing...
As already pointed out by several people (including me [1]), this is
blatantly false. Could you please stop spreading this deliberate
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Guillaume Paumier guillom@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston s...@samj.net wrote:
... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial
publishing...
As already pointed out by several people (including me
2009/1/30 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now the
French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing it's
probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag images
lacking releases
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/30 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now
the
French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing
it's
probably worth
Hoi,
What is the point of off list communication when you quote from these
communications ?
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/30 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Guillaume Paumier guillom@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston s...@samj.net
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
idea that sexual images equal harm.
FMF
On 1/29/09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
To some of those people, and to others, trying to place
David Moran hett schreven:
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
idea that sexual images equal harm.
FMF
Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As
far as I have understood this discussion, we are not talking about
deleting
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
David Moran hett schreven:
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea
that sexual images equal harm.
Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As
far as I have
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:41 AM, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
idea that sexual images equal harm.
FMF
The two are not necessarily equal. There are plenty of people who,
upon finding a nude picture of
2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any
nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions
about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of
consent? is the depicted model aware
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any
nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions
about their uploaded nudes (is the
2009/1/30 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than
going through all of the human anatomy.
-Chad
Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have
articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images
of
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:21 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have
articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images
of faces.
In addition most parts of the human anatomy don't have the same
providence issues.
2009/1/30 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org:
The issue is pictures of genitalia, isn't it? So NoGenitalia *could*
be the thing you two are searching for...
Marcus Buck
Breasts are also something on an issue. It would also be somewhat
tricky to make a
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a
reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and
Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this
is inadequate.
I don't see this tag at
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michael Bimmler michael.bimm...@wikimedia.ch
Date: 30 January 2009 16:38:29 GMT+01:00
To: memb...@wikimedia.ch, wikimediac...@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia CH Members] General Assembly and guided tour /
Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss
Sam Johnston hett schreven:
Is it ever clear that the depicted person agrees to the depiction?
Well, it's not, but that's actually not a very useful point. I was never
in Cameroon. I have never met anybody from Cameroon. I have never seen
any obvious evidence that Cameroon really exists. And
The silently stripped PDF is at (English version)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediach-l/attachments/20090130/8dc29ea1/attachment-0002.PDF
Sorry about that!
M.
On 1/30/09, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michael Bimmler michael.bimm
that gives a 404
2009/1/30 Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com
The silently stripped PDF is at (English version)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediach-l/attachments/20090130/8dc29ea1/attachment-0002.PDF
Sorry about that!
M.
On 1/30/09, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote
try
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediach-l/attachments/20090130/8dc29ea1/attachment-0002.pdf
regards
mark
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:34 PM, effe iets anders
effeietsand...@gmail.comwrote:
that gives a 404
2009/1/30 Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com
The silently stripped PDF
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When I print a poster, and the license and the contributors have to be
printed on it as well, the image of the picture is spoiled for me. This
would be a reason for me to return the printed poster. So let us be
practical, WHERE do you want to have all the information
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Obviously I like it that my picture of a wild boar is used on a
Russian website. They asked, nice. But I take more pride in KNOWING
this than in having my name on their website.
This point brings to mind my early days on the
On Friday 30 January 2009 01:02:41 Chad wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me
_to_cross_my_legs_when_I_wore_a_skirt.jpg
a usage for the first of the two images, but the latter holds
no educational merit whatsoever (and the page title is hardly
You
Michael Snow wrote:
Requirements like that (the US used to
require a copyright notice) have been stripped away as an unreasonable
burden on authors.
I don't think that that was the reason. The publishers would be the
ones to make sure that the notice was there anyway. Like abandoning the
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Requirements like that (the US used to
require a copyright notice) have been stripped away as an unreasonable
burden on authors.
I don't think that that was the reason. The publishers would be the
ones to make sure that the notice was
Delirium wrote:
Anthony wrote:
My point of view is that the proposed license update is a violation of the
moral rights of the contributors. If Mike is going to deny that moral
rights exist in the first place, then I feel the need to explain that they
do.
The problem is that moral
On a totally off-topic note, Category:SuicideGirls looks to me like preview
pictures to promote a commercial site. While I can see some use for some of
those pictures (like piercing articles, etc), the collection as a whole
would not fall ,at least IMHO, under Must be realistically useful for
2009/1/30 Peter Jacobi pjacobi...@googlemail.com:
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a
reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and
Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why
Sam;
I think that this is more of a Commons discussion. While I disagree with much
of what you say, I agree that this class of image, by its very nature, requires
more scrutiny. Serious thought should be given to a Nude Model Policy of
requiring uploaders to answer about five questions under
33 matches
Mail list logo
